Anti-Abortion Campaigns Use Fatherhood as a Weapon on Father’s Day

get causes updates

It’s Father’s Day this weekend, and that means a time for everyone to set aside a little time to cherish the fathers in their lives. Except if you are an anti-abortion activist. For them, it’s the perfect time to campaign for men to play a larger role in convincing their sexual partners not to terminate a pregnancy.

Of course, no person wants someone who wants to have a baby to get an abortion instead simply because she feels that she doesn’t have the support she needs from a partner, either financially or emotionally, and to that effect, asking men to play a role makes perfect sense. Yet in the campaign coming from abortion opponents, the image is less about ensuring men support and provide for a new child that a pregnant person wants to have, and borders on using them to coax or even coerce their partners out of a decision she has already made and is happy with after deciding to end the pregnancy.

Out on the streets in front of abortion clinics, I often talk to pro-life activists who tell me they address the men accompanying the pregnant person into the building, believing that it is the man — not the pregnant person — who really wants the abortion and that she is being brought in against her will. For the most part, when talking to the patient inside, their impression is completely and utterly wrong.

Yet that is the underlying theme of the appeals to men from the anti-abortion movement, appeals that have ramped up heading into Father’s Day weekend. In a series of posts about men and their role in abortion, National Right to Life News provides gems such as chastising men for “consenting to, if not actively encouraging them to abort,” as if by not consenting to her termination that should in an ideal world stop the procedure from being done. Others proclaim that by allowing partners to abort, they are now damaged in their traditional, God given role in life as strong protectors of family.

“You see Abortion attacks the fundamental nature of the gift men bring to the family; the defense, protection and provision of the children entrusted to their care,” writes Silent No More’s Kevin Burke in a Father’s Day tribute. “Violating this fundamental law of God can later weaken men in their vocation as husband, fathers and spiritual leaders in the home and in your church.”

Should men be able to stop someone from an abortion that she wants? It’s the call that pro-life activists make on the street, when they tell patient companions to, “Be a man, don’t let her abort your baby!” It’s the impetus behind failed spousal consent laws that never passed court muster, but that still threaten to pop up again in the future, and that some abortion opponents make clear that they would whole-heartedly support. Or in bills that make it virtually impossible for a teen to get an abortion without the consent of her father, regardless of who else agrees to it.

Abortion opponents may be stopping a little shy of saying that men deserve the right to actively block a partner from a wanted abortion, and instead force her to remain pregnant and give birth to “his” baby (although some activists advocate just that, and suggest contacting legal groups to see about potentially getting a “restraining order against the abortion“). But at the very least they are adamant that a real man will always protect “his children” — even if those “children” are just developing embryos that the person carrying them doesn’t want to carry to term or give birth to.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was vehemently anti-abortion, calling it the shame of the nation. Most all suffragettes in the early 20th Century were against abortion and some were even against birth control. They thought it was a male plot to undermine female reproductive power, and a back-handed way to make them go to work.

Not much to stand by. Most come from others. And they still make no sense.

To destroy that life at any stage of development is to destroy that individual.

By that skewed logic sperm should be protected and eggs. You seek to turn all of us into slaves for your religion.

"A 1964 New Jersey court ruling required a pregnant woman to undergo blood transfusions even if her religion forbade it for the sake of her unborn child.

You are referring to Raleigh Fitkin-Paul Morgan Meml Hosp. v. Morgan, 201 A.2d. 537 (N.J. 1964). The opinion is not inconsistent with those of the day. The child is quick, the pregnancy being beyond the 32nd week. She was in her late trimester. Even Roe and Connecticut set limits of on demand abortions to viability [third trimester]. Which is legally incorrect and is being challenged under the fourth. Soon all limits will fall.

It is quite tiring and disgusting that you forced birthers keep equating abortion to slavery. And yes its not rocket science but you still dont get it. A slave did not inhabit a juridical person, therefore the state did not have an interest in not granting them rights. You are trying to repeal the thirteenth amendment by forcing a woman to carry a fetus. The 13th states Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. You are in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241  Conspiracy Against Rights: Conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person's rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Prolife feminist is an oxymoron. They want to take womens rights away and propel women back into the 19th century, therefore they are not feminists.

And biology doesnt make one a mother. Its actions. A mother is one who cares for and raises a child, not a lump of cells. A pregnant woman is an incubator. Two different things entirely. Until that kid is outside the womb its just a lump of cells that belongs to her and she can eject it like a turd.

And every software prompts you to enter a choice. As for the Gates giving to PP. So what. The Koches gave more to NRL. There is far more money spent on forced birth.

Your use of the term "forced birther" indicates your own bias.

And your use of the terms racism, murder, killing, slavery, abuse doesnt show yours? This is very much like white raciest who get pissed for being called what they are and then trying to exonerate their behavior by saying blacks do it too. The difference is Im being so called biased against stupidity and cruelty. So if you want to call that biased in your tiny little mind go for it. Call me biased because I want to stand up for womans rights. Or the rights of a child not to grow up in abuse and neglect. Or for human equality.

Wouldn't that make opponents of infanticide advocates of "forced parenthood" ?

No. When something is inside your body it affects your very life and rights. When it is outside your body you have the right to discharge the duties to another and theres no overwhelming state interest to terminate the child. However I do believe in euthanasia. If someone [even a child] is suffering why should we allow that to continue? We put animals down and call it humane but allow humans to suffer needlessly. And you want to give them our so called rights?

Another idiot. What hes describing isnt prejudice. Its someone bitching because they cant control others. I see the same react with abusers when they cant abuse. Just throwing a tantrum.

There are pro-choice Protestant denominations, like the United Church of Christ.

And they are the minority among religion. And they catch hell form the others, usually in form of a Molotov cocktail.

but that's not the case in pro-life versus pro-choice.

You are full of it. The prolife movement of today was created in the 60s; the National Right to Life Committee was formed in 1968, while in Australia, the National Right to Life formed in 1970. There was no need for this movement as prior to that abortion was illegal except in the case of rape, incest and the health of the mother [and it took years to get those exceptions]. Back then most people were forced birthers. Proving polls have nothing to do with the law, which is as it should be. If not we would still be burning witches. This was no grass roots cause. It was [and is] a mainstream cause.

And what you are forgetting is we are still infested with religion. Less than 25% of the world is classified as atheist, agnostic or non-religious. And FYI: the Teen Choice Awards has nothing to do with abortion. Its about teen celebrities. And every software prompts you to enter a choice. And as

Thus, Humes arguments appear to justify not only colonialism and sexual discrimination, but probably also racism, infant

Yes nuts have used all sorts of arguments to justify cruelty, take a closer look at what you are doing. I have addressed these non-arguments.

Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation

I have address the legal issues. It does not follow that they must support the right of men to have abortions too. Because men are incapable of having an abortion, just as a woman is incapable of freezing semen. Need a basic physiology course? I know hes using the doggie analogy. Dogs are property. Its much like giving your salad the vote, or your car. Many juris persons dont get the same rights as the one next to them because of plain practicality. I dont have the right to the same EXACT medical treatment as my wife. If arrested male prisoners are searched differently from females or children. As a home owner I have different rights [and duties] than a renter. I can vote but a prisoner cannot. I can sign a recognized contract but an individual who was declared non compos mentis or a young child cannot. Everyone should be treated as fair as possible within rational. A woman can have an abortion because she is a juridical person and that fetus, that isnt a juridical person, inhabits her and she can do with it as she please. Much like that tumor in your head.

Posner goes on to state I agree [with Singer] that gratuitous cruelty to and neglect of animals is wrong and that some costs should be incurred to reduce the suffering of animals raised for food or other human purposes or subjected to medical or other testing and experimentation. But I do not agree that we have a duty to (the other) animals that arises from their being the equal members of a community composed of all those creatures in the universe that can feel pain, and that it is merely "prejudice" in a disreputable sense akin to racial prejudice or sexism that makes us "discriminate" in favor of our own species.

He states that we have a right to life and that includes eating. Protections [from cruelty] for animals or any other non-juris creature is not against that right and is not destructive to the well being of society.

So once again weather or not something can suffer is irrelevant. That salad you ate suffered but you gave it little or no thought. Proving once again vegans are delusional and dont care about suffering. These are just words they use to feed their disorder.